In the case of Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a railroad worker who had been injured on the job and sought compensation under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The plaintiff, Mr. Rogers, was working for Missouri Pacific Railroad when he fell from a moving train car due to an unstable ladder and suffered severe injuries that resulted in amputation of his leg below knee level. He sued his employer claiming negligence on their part for not providing safe equipment to work with. The court held that if jury finds any negligence by an employer which played even slightest role in producing injury or death of its employee then it is enough to hold them liable under FELA regardless how other factors may have contributed primarily towards accident's occurrence. This ruling significantly lowered burden-of-proof threshold for employees seeking damages under FELA as they no longer needed to demonstrate that their employers' negligence was primary cause behind their injuries but only one contributing factor among others.

In the dissenting opinion for Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to loosen causation standards in Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) cases was a departure from established legal principles and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the Court’s purview to alter legislation, which he believed they did by changing FELA's causation standard from "proximate cause" to "any part...however small." Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative implications this could have on future negligence claims under FELA, fearing it would lead to excessive litigation and unwarranted liability for employers. The justice also criticized the majority's interpretation of congressional intent behind FELA as overly broad and unsupported by legislative history or precedent.